DEATH IS EASY by Russell Madden

FREEDOM,  As If It Mattered by Russell Madden

The Guardian Project by Russell Madden

RaNdoM by Russell Madden

 

With elections for local, state, and national political offices fast approaching, I have steeled my nerves for the inevitable onslaught in solicitations for money to support this or that candidate. Requests via mail for my hard-earned dough are easily handled. The vast majority of them quickly find a permanent home in the circular file. A few linger while I ponder if I truly want to give money to this particular person or organization.

Given my limited monetary resources, I am very discerning in how I distribute my contributions. I especially loath the notion of sending good money after bad. Once a person or group has demonstrated an inconsistent vision of what it means to be free, he, she, or they are extremely unlikely to win my favor. I put my money where my values are. Any other course is not one I can readily endorse.

Take, for example, the National Rifle Association (NRA). I joined the NRA shortly after a majority of our immoral Congressional representatives and an equally corrupt president passed a "crime" bill designed to further restrict my rights to self-defense. Indeed, that piece of political and unconstitutional dreck helped provoke me to expand the weapons I owned beyond a single .22 pistol. So many people at the time shared my distaste of this infringement on the right to keep and bear arms that the sales of firearms soared. While hardly what the politicians envisioned, i.e., increasing the number of guns in private hands, this law still accomplished its ultimate goal: to expand the stranglehold of the State on our liberty.

Nearly a decade later, however, my membership in the NRA (or any other self-defense oriented group, for that matter) has accomplished exactly squat at rolling back the nonsensical bans on ammunition clips holding more than ten rounds, bayonet holders, flash suppressors, or pistol grips on rifles. We are also still saddled with an "instant" registration, er, check system that promises to lay the foundation for the eventual confiscation of all privately owned weapons.

(Oh, hell. Might as well admit the truth. What the statists and collectivists are really after is the elimination of all weapons in private hands. Witness Great Britain and Australia, those bastions of rising dictatorship: first ban handguns and rifles; then shotguns; then air rifles; then swords (!), knives, and who knows what else. After all, in many airports and government-run schools, tweezers, GI Joe dolls, nail clippers, files, and a plethora of otherwise innocent objects have been declared to be "weapons" and seized by the conscientious yet idiotic agents of the State.)

The high-sounding words of our federal attorney-general that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual -- not a group -- right to self-defense are celebrated by the NRA...even while the meaninglessness of his declaration is made crystal clear when he informs us that there is no federal anti-self-defense law that he opposes and will not sanction. Curiously, however, the NRA is silent on this stunning reversal.

Freedom-friendly words are easy to pronounce. They are difficult (for lying, back-stabbing politicians) to match with effective actions. Every president from Lincoln to Wilson to FDR to Bush has mouthed his concern for liberty...even while his behavior announced him to be the hypocritical scoundrel that he was.

Sadly, the NRA frequently emulates this distasteful and destructive model of unabashed political-eze. They refuse to endorse libertarian candidates -- "because they cannot win" -- even while praising to the skies and awarding "A" ratings to candidates that other, more consistent self-defense groups give a "D" or "F." Pushing their "Project Exile" -- to enforce all current gun laws -- simply reinforces an implicit approval of the "right" of the State to punish otherwise innocent individuals for technical violations or non-rights-violating actions that should never have been prohibited in the first place (e.g., carrying without a permit or having a gun near a school).

Also, the previously mentioned "instant check" championed by the NRA is a recipe for disaster. At best, any such check should be a "negative" one: merely see if a person is on a prohibited list. If not, the person should be free to purchase any weaponry he desires without any paper trail to mark him as "one of those." (However, I believe a strong argument can be made that even such an "improved" policy still violates Second Amendment guarantees; cf if such a system were set up for issues relevant to the First Amendment.)

To top off this incomplete list, a former NRA president even endorsed conscription in the pages of one of their magazines.

So when I recently received a call from the NRA asking for a donation, I was less than receptive.

The woman making the solicitation started to go into her canned spiel about the possible threats to our "gun" rights that are currently or that would emanate from Congress should the wrong candidates win election.

I told her that I did not want to give extra money to the NRA given many of their stances (as outlined above). I said I was willing to maintain my basic membership so I might possibly have some influence in changing the course of the NRA. But I made it clear that I was unhappy when, for instance, the NRA leadership asked for what they thought was politically "feasible"...and then ended up with even less than that after political negotiations were finished.

I politely pointed out to her that not one national anti-self-defense law had been reversed; that even the popular arming of airline pilots was opposed by the president and his flunkies; that the NRA endorsed middle-of-the-road candidates or ones even hostile to self-defense rights; and so on.

She then said that, well, yes, the more "extreme" groups such as Gun Owners of America opposed what the NRA did in some areas. She implied that there was something "wrong" in being extreme.

I replied that I agreed with those extreme groups. That being "extreme" in and of itself was not necessarily a bad thing. It depended on what you were "extreme" about. (For a more complete examination of this "argument from intimidation" see "'Extremism,' or the Art of Smearing" by Ayn Rand in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.)

Taken aback by my obviously unexpected appreciation for "extremism," she continued to talk with me for awhile. She warmed to my point of view and, with seeming reluctance, told me she had to go but that she enjoyed the conversation.

I thanked her, as well, and hung up the phone...without having pledged any money to the NRA's political wings.

This incident illustrates a few things. The most obvious to me is that the NRA leadership should, in any political discussion, first focus a laser beam on what the right position is. Then, if after trying gallantly to oppose the forces of statism they must settle for less than perfection, then, fine, they can do so with an unblemished conscience...as long as the new law or policy, on the whole, advances and does not diminish our freedom.

Second, the NRA has tended to gain members when it adopts a tough stance. For example, when Wayne LaPierre said that President Clinton apparently was willing to tolerate murders as he attacked gun owners for political gain, individuals who are refreshed by such directness flocked to join.

Third, the NRA should worry more about following proper principles than about being liked by "moderate" politicians or citizens who see nothing wrong with infringements on our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

On a wider scale, libertarians should likewise not compromise away what makes us unique from the statists and collectivists. Whenever someone attempts to dilute the truth in order to curry favor with those most opposed to him, he succeeds only in strengthening his enemies. (See Rand's "The Anatomy of Compromise," in CUI.) Why a fighter for freedom should count it a blessing to be joined by those who would sell out liberty for a new welfare benefit escapes me. Disguising reality simply to "impress" those who cling to irrationality and coercion is a violation of one's honesty, one's integrity, one's self. It's demeaning and disgusting. Such a "strategy" panders to the worst in people, not the best.

What is to be gained from obtaining an "influence" over those who have done the most to undermine what they profess to honor? We are not the ones who should be ashamed of what we believe. To "hide one's light under a basket" -- to deceive by omission -- hardly speaks well of one's self-esteem, one's self-confidence, one's self-respect. The "courage of one's convictions" should not be an empty slogan.

We should be proud of our commitment to human dignity, to the moral autonomy of all individuals, to peaceful coexistence, to the creation of a world in which true tolerance reigns, where each person abhors the blatant contradictions of "legalized theft," "forced charity," and "compelled morality" and seeks only to live his life as he chooses to do so.

Perhaps someday the NRA will answer the call to true liberty free of dissembling and social metaphysics and "realpolitik."

Perhaps someday all libertarians will, as well.